Important points:
Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act enumerates the facts of which the court shall take judicial notice. General belief in the existence of facts dealt within Section 56 is induced by the general knowledge acquired otherwise than in suit or proceedings and independently of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is to be borne in mind that the scope and extent of Section 56 is not confined to Section 57 and Section 57 directs that the court shall take judicial notice of the facts referred to in clauses (1) to (13) therein. Section 57 does not intend or mean that judicial notice of facts, other than the facts enumerated under clauses (1) to (13), cannot be taken.

K. HARILAL, J.

The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom the respondent/landlord had filed RCP No. 75/2011, before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking an order fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule building owned by him and occupied by the revision petitioner (the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as they figure in the Rent Control Petition).

2. According to the petitioner, the tenancy commenced on 08.12.2000 and the respondent is in occupation of an area having an extent of 2500 square feet. As per the lease deed, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.4.25/- square feet. Subsequently, as per the terms of the agreement on 03.04.2009, the respondent agreed to revise the rent at the rate of 25% every five year. The present rate of rent is Rs.6.25/- per square feet. According to the petitioner, the present rate of rent is far below the rate of rent prevailing in the locality for similar buildings. Hence, the petitioner prayed for an order fixing the fair rent of the building at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet.

3. The respondent resisted the claim for enhancement of rent contending that there is no need for fixing fair rent as there is specific provision in the rent deed requiring revision of rent on completion of every five years. The rent was revised on two occasions as per the terms of agreement and the present rate of rent is Rs.15,616/-, that is, Rs.6.25/- per square feet. So, the demand for rent at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet is exorbitant and unreasonable. Where the rent deed itself contains provision for periodical enhancement of rent at a specified rate, the Rent Control Petition seeking enhanced rent, at a rate more than the specified rate, is not maintainable.

4. On the rival pleadings, both parties went on to trial. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court enhanced the present rent and fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.7.80/- per square feet. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said order passed by the Rent Control Court. The legality and propriety of the order, fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule building at Rs.7.80/- per square feet, are assailed in this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the point that there cannot be an enhancement during the period of an agreement wherein there is a specific clause providing for periodical enhancement at a specified rate. In order to substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan [AIR 2011 SC 1940]. Learned counsel drew our attention to clauses (i) and (v) in paragraph 21 of the aforesaid decision. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case, by the lease agreement dated 03.04.2009, periodical enhancement of rent was made at the rate of 25% on every five years. Learned counsel has contended that the present rent control petition seeking further enhancement of rent, more than at the said specified rate, is not maintainable. Secondly, learned counsel vehemently contended that the court below went wrong by fixing fair rent on the basis of the variations in the money value and cost of living caused by inflation, without proof of the same. According to the learned counsel, inflation is not a judicially noticeable fact under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent advanced the argument that neither any of the provisions under the Rent Control Act nor clauses (i) and (v) in paragraph 21 of the decision in the Mohammad Ahmad's case (supra) would preclude the landlord from filing a rent control petition, invoking Section 5(1) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid decision does not provide an im